some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) writes:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials, and the
way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can be found in
other animals. Here's a short paper on a recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued I'd say, without overegging the evidence https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

There might be an evolutionary advantage in burying dead, as it doesn't
assist the enemies of the elephant by giving them an easy meal. Lions
can probably smell a corps from some distance if it isn't buried.

I searched back for discussions about burial and found a rather hostile
one about Homo naledi.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence >>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on >>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543–R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence >>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on >>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543–R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)

I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is
stronger with this observation than without it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence >>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on >>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*. >>>>

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you
inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)

I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is >>stronger with this observation than without it.

I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
what other indication could there possibly be?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:46:25 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in <h8ntvi97fq7kah1v3sslnjesum0blo5mmo@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) >>>>>>> wrote:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials, >>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can be found >>>>>>>>in other animals. Here's a short paper on a recently discovered >>>>>>>>"elephant graveyard" - carefully argued I'd say, without >>>>>>>>overegging the evidence >>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found- buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on >>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to
*grieving*.

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this >>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you >>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses the emotional underpinnings >>>>>>of these activities. The findings about burials support the analysis >>>>>>in studies like Anderson's

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which >>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis
added.)

I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in >>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour in >>>>population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We then >>>>observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is no obvious >>>>explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis that this >>>>"could" be an indicator that also population B experiences grief seems >>>>OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is >>>>stronger with this observation than without it.

I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So to >>restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that is >>explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour in a >>different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why they do
X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first population also >>experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that these "could"
indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour what other >>indication could there possibly be?

I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some time
ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem with
that!

In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious one
and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would impress me
far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other animals
visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that we humans
visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see any
evolutionary advantage in doing that.

I don't know if this matters, but National Geographic has published
videos of elephants coming across elephant bones and engaged in
what appears to be grieving. Search on Youtube for "elephants
mourning" or "elephants grieving" and see for yourself the
behaviors.

Coming to that conclusion is very subjective, though.
What thoughts are going through the elephants' minds?
Are they just curious, or are they "actually" mourning?

However, I believe it is now common knowledge
that animals have feelings. I once attended a talk
by Jane Goodall where she mentioned this being established
in academia, amid much skepticism, answering the
question, "do animals have feelings?" "Of course they
do!" she said, and (paraphrasing) "anyone with a pet will
tell you the same". I daresay elephants are smarter
than your average pet.

However, I suspect the best way to tell if elephant
_burials_ are mourning behaviors is to actually observe
how they go about it. I'm not sure that behavior
has been witnessed yet.

Having said all that: compared to you all, I'm just
a semi-educated and semi-literate layman. But this
subject fascinates me.

--
-Scott

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:06:50 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard) >>>>>>> wrote:

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials, >>>>>>>>and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.

One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a
recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence >>>>>>>>https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?

and here the academic paper it's based on >>>>>>>>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*. >>>>>>

That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this >>>>>>you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you >>>>>>inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology.
Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which >>>>> humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.) >>>>
I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in >>>>there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour
in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences >>>>grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is >>>>stronger with this observation than without it.

I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So
to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first
population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour >>what other indication could there possibly be?

I think we are maybe drifting back towards a discussion we had some
time ago about the nature of evidence - not that I have any problem
with that!

In regard to the topic at hand, I think there would have to be some
reason to think that the primary if not sole purpose of Behaviour A is
to deal with Behaviour B. I can think of various evolutionary
advantages to burial that don't involve grief; hygiene is an obvious
one and Richmond has suggested another. An example of what would
impress me far more about animal grief is if we had evidence of other
animals visiting burial sites for no physical reason in the way that
we humans visit the graves of our relatives and friends - I can't see
any evolutionary advantage in doing that.

Couple of problems with that line of reasoning I'd say. First, even if Richmond's or your explanation were convincing, it's still a question
of comparative evaluation of the observation. So starting with a
"one explanation could be grief ..." then leads to formulating
alternatives accounts, which is how science typically progresses.
So putting a hypothesis like this on the table seems perfectly OK
- and again the "could" in the paper doesn't commit to anything more.

(I don't think myself that your or Richmond's explanations are particularly convincing. Elephants and lions don't compete for food, and while in
very rare circumstances, prides of lions have been seen attacking
elephants, that is exceedingly rare. Add to that the shallow grave
that would not deter a scavenger that can dig, and that it's
a baby elephant that would not provide much food, unlike adults,
I don't see that fly. And hygiene would affect more animals that
stay local, in burrows etc, not free-roaming herds).

Your problems go further than that though. Even if, arguendo, the
behaviour had the benefits you and Richmond describe, why would
that be an argument that it is not driven by grief? As long as
one accepts that emotions in general are (also) the result of
evolution, they seem to be used to motivate organisms to do
things that are beneficial for them - we feel e.g. disgust towards
rotten meat, which makes us not eat rotten meat, which is a
good thing for our health. But that it benefits our health
does not make the feeling of disgust any less real, or
means that we don't act because of that feeling (and not
because of our knowledge of the health risks from putrefaction
meat.

So when you say that you'd only accept evidence of grief
observations of behaviour that has no associated benefits,
you have already prejudged the question and decided that grief
is not an evolved behaviour. And that I'd say would need quite a
bit of evidence in support, to counter studies like those
by John Archer, "Grief from an evolutionary perspective." (2001)
or Tania Reynolds, et al: Child mortality and parental grief:
An evolutionary analysis, New Ideas in Psychology,Volume 59,
2020. While these two focus on humans, they too would face the
difficulty to meet your requirement, i.e. that there must not
be any benefits from experiencing grief, before we accept
it as real.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)